Stoneham Towing expansion delayed
Published on January 28th, 1998
STONEHAM, MA - At Thursday night's meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, a public hearing on the petition of Stephen J. Mazzola, Trustee of Gould Street Stoneham Trust, was continued until March 5, giving the parties on both sides of the issue an opportunity to discuss the matter amongst themselves.
The request before the board concerned a petition for variances necessary for the construction of an addition to the rear of an existing building at l8-20 Gould Street, home of Stoneham Towing.
Attorney Steven Cicatelli, who represents the petitioner, advised the board that the intent of the addi-tion would be to internalize the op-eration and not to increase it. With vehicles housed indoors, he as-serted, any necessary repairs to those vehicles would take place out of sight. In addition, the starting and idling of trucks which, due to the nature of the business, could take place any time of the day or night, would now be moved indoors, yielding a reduction in noise to the neighboring residences.
The existing structure on the property dates back prior to zoning and, therefore, current zoning re-quirements are not imposed. The addition, however, would be sub-ject to Stoneham's zoning by-laws, unless variances could be granted. Among the variances being re-quested are setback from street of approximately 39 feet; sideline set-back of 9.9 feet; and space between buildings variance of about 65 feet. In lieu of the 3 foot wide area of landscaping as required by law, the petitioner has offered to instead do-nate l0 shade trees to Gould Street.
In addition to these, Cicatelli stated that his client was also seek-ing variances for the existing struc-ture. While not required, due to the grandfather clause the pre-existing building is protected under, Ci-catelli said Mazzola is looking to bring the entire operation up to code.
The zoning on this section of Gould Street allows commercial on one side, and residential A on the other. While the operation will con-tinue as is if variances are not granted, Cicatelli stated that within the requested variances, the sur-rounding residences will benefit from the anticipated noise reduc-tion.
Attorney Mark Curley addressed the board on behalf of his client, abutter Mildred Power of l5 Gould Street, who opposes the plan. He stated that the variances being requested were numerous and "huge," and that the property was already "overburdened."
He continued by asserting that less than beneficial use of property "does not constitute a hardship." He further suggested that an option that the petitioner might consider would be finding a larger lot, since by granting the variances, the ZBA "would be nullifying the zoning by-laws" of the town.
"You'd have to do a real back-bend to grant these variances," stated Curley.
Power stated that the area is an "absolute mess," with the large number of vehicles that are associ-ated with the business parked, and even double parked, along it. She also said that it is often difficult to drive in or out of her driveway. She requested that the board take the area residents into consideration and not grant the variance, further voicing her belief that "they're go-ing to expand."
Gould Street resident Louise Ward also voiced her opposition to the plan by stating that the owners of the towing business have "had their way over the years," and charged that the business had "cre-ated unsafe conditions" with the parking of vehicles on the street which prevented definition between that and the sidewalk.
In contrast, (an) Oriental Court resident (Michael Brennan), whose property abuts the existing building, stated that he would not oppose the plan and would prefer to see the vehicles associated with the prop-erty housed inside the addition since fumes from the operation of-ten drift to his residence, especially in the summer months. In addition, he stated that any time he has had an issue with the owners, they have been "good about it."
"We've had our differences, but we've usually talked it out," stated Brennan.
Board of Health Chairman Mike Rolli reported that, if the variances are granted, the addition would be reviewed to assure compliance with DEP standards. However, he stated that the owners have been conscien-tious on conferring with the Board of Health on various issues, and he would thus "highly endorse" the plan, calling it "good for the neigh-borhood."
A meeting called last summer by the petitioner's attorney, to discuss the addition, attracted only a few people, according to Cicatelli.
Parties and attorneys on both sides of the issue, have agreed to meet before the continuance of the hearing on March 5.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!